A much better comparison would be to George W. Bush who fired Federal Attorneys who were investigating corruption among Republican legislators.
And…he got away with it clean.
This is all nothing new. Presidents have been using – or abusing – their power for a very long time.
By the way, how are those Benghazi hearings going?
Well let’s hear it from the horse’s mouth:
Obama: “There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”
“With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.”
Now let’s hear from Obama on how it fits into employment opportunities:
From his book “The Audacity of Hope”.
“There’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border—a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before,”
”Not all these fears are irrational,”
“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,” Obama noted. “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”
So to recap the President’s position, It’s the function of Congress to make the laws and it’s the function of the President to enforce them. It’s also his position that it’s harmful to the blue collar work force.
So, he then goes on to say “But screw those blue-collar American workers, just get those illegals to the voting booth as quick as we can and we don’t need their sorry asses!”?
Or he might have gone on to suggest that recognizing that potential problem is needful, solutions can be found and he is committed to finding them.
Your excerpt offers us no guidance on that.
Lets also not forget George W. Bush’s policy of signing statements, where he’d put a statement indicating how his administration interpreted a law that he just signed, even when members of Congress stood up and said that interpretation was incorrect. President Bush enforced the law based on his own interpretation - a executive enforcement action.
Agreed: also a relevant comparison, and one a lot of us detested.
This is why I think Obama might have erred here. He let good governance get in the way of slavish adherence to the constitution…but that slavish adherence is what many of us demand of the other party when they are in power.
The nicest policeman in the world might break the law in order to arrest the worst criminal in the world…but that makes all of us innocent people just a little less safe.
Still, eleven million people living in a “Phantom Zone” existence? That’s mega-fucked.
Every president uses signing statements. If Congress thought he was exceeding his authority as the president, they should have impeached him. The fact that one, two or even 10 Congresscritters disagreed with him is meaningless.
I’m not sure if posing these questions is digressing and may require a different thread altogether, but I always wonder where the animosity for illegal immigrants come from. Do you not believe that they do it out of necessity? Do you not believe that if doing things the legal way was realistic and viable that they wouldn’t do it that way?
The thing that stinks about what Obama just did is that he politicized the whole thing by purposely waiting until after the election to do it so as not to harm the chances of his party. His sanctimonious nonsense about how he can’t wait any longer to act is an insult to our intelligence.
See post #49. That’s part of it.
That’s like saying that we were going to have a nuclear war anyway, but he made it destructive. When were we not going to have this “politicized”? Six months ago? Next year?
Nah. I get tired of the actual racists who think the poor brown people are too stupid to follow the law. It’s pretty horrific, really. Having spent a few years south of the border, I don’t have such a low opinion of Latin Americans.
Or who says “federal firearms laws are too complicated. I’m not enforcing those anymore.”
Dictatorships are easily made from republics by making everything illegal, then exempting their friends, etc.
Slightly tangential to the thread I started, but I’m a little confused at this point. 1) Substantively, what is the actual policy significance of what Obama has done? Most of these 5 million were never going to be deported anyway, and my understanding is that most of the 400k we deport annually are criminals or people caught at the border. 2) Why did he do it? If there was political gain to be had, why not act before the midterms?
That way isn’t legal. That’s like saying the only legal way I have of obtaining a car is to steal one and hope to be pardoned.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not sure what your point was with this. Are you saying that Obama usurping legislative powers has a precedent in John Marshall usurping executive powers?
He wanted to score political points with Hispanics, but not at the risk of losing seats in the Senate. Low turn-out of minorities in the midterms means he loses more than he gains if he does it before the election.
Oh wait, it’s all about keeping families together. I forgot…
And if he had announced this before the election, you would now be praising his courage? I had not noticed this leftish populism in you before, John. I trust you will forgive if I seem somewhat skeptical.
Perhaps you will tell us just what, perzackly, he might have done to earn your heartfelt approval?
I should think Democrats would have done better if he had done it before the midterms, increasing minority turnout.
Who knows? Better, or worse? Dunno. What I do know is that the Dems don’t have a rat-fuck expert like Karl Rove. Closest they have is the genial ruthlessness of Bill Clinton. Was that his advice, to protect red-state Dems, was it good advice that just didn’t work? Damned if I know.
My understanding is that Obama is actually deporting more people than any President before him. Congress has appropriated money to deport somewhere around 400,000 people a year - if they want all 11 million gone, they’ll need to send the President more money. This seems unlikely.
What he has done with this policy is specify a class of people that are at the bottom of the list to be be deported. How would you do things differently?